Michael Is Part Of The Trinity

[erichard]

...

Joseph Smith (who certainly qualifies as an "authority") taught on 16 June 1844, in a public discourse, that:

"The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body as the Savior did" (The Words of Joseph Smith, 382).

This quote does seem to say that the Holy Ghost has never had a body. But does it?

Does it absolutely say that the Holy Ghost has NEVER had a body? This quote is not scripture, so if revelation is given we should accept the revelation over what this quote MIGHT be saying. Right?

But until one receives more revelation, they should not teach a doctrine based on speculation and intuition. I agree. Does that mean we cannot discuss such ideas respectfully on this board-- admitting what is scripture, and what is not?

Adam obtained a physical body, died, and was resurrected shortly after Jesus Christ -- and thus has had a physical body again for quite some time. Yet, on 2 April 1843 Joseph Smith (an ackowledged "authority") said: "the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit" (D&C 130:22).

The scriptures do not specifically say Adam was resurrected shortly after Christ.

My point is that your quotes are not absolutely conclusive. Adam still may be the Holy Ghost.

Richard

[Drewm777]

D&C 138 sure seems to say he was resurrected! First of all, President Smith saw Adam and Eve in the spirit world among those who "looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage" (D&C 138:38-39, 50).

He then says

These the Lord taught, and gave them power to come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father's kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life...

[Helorum]

D&C 138[:38-39, 50] sure seems to say [Adam] was resurrected!

Here are a few more confirmatory sources on this issue ---

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 725; Mormon Doctrine, 273, 404, 493, 639, Journal of Discourses, 21:291-92; Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 2:39.

[Drewm777]

Here are a few more confirmatory sources on this issue ---

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 725; Mormon Doctrine, 273, 404, 493, 639, Journal of Discourses, 21:291-92; Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 2:39.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is probably the most authoritative because it there was apostolic oversight of it's contents and publication. The Orson Pratt quote is interesting. Of course, detractors might say Orson Pratt's beliefs regarding Adam (as cited in your reference to JD 21:291-292) were not in harmony with Brigham Young's. But let me quote it here for convenience. I've decided to quote quite a bit for context's sake. Besides, it's a really interesting sermon on a topic that would make a great new thread, if anyone wants to take it up.

We have an account given here of a personage called Satan, who stood up in heaven, being an angel of light, an holy angel, prior to that time—who stood up before the Father and the Son, and made a proposition concerning the new creation that was to be made. "Behold," said he to the Father, "send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor." This was the language, according to this revelation which I have just read, made use of by this angel who stood in the presence of God. But the Only Begotten of the Father, the First-born of this great and numerous family in heaven, said unto his Father: "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." Then we have an account that the Lord, because Satan thus transgressed, and because he sought to destroy the agency of man, and to redeem all mankind, that not a soul should be lost, was displeased with the proposition. And why should he not be? An agency was given to all intelligent beings; and without a proper agency, intelligent beings could not receive glory and honor, and a reward and a fullness of happiness in the celestial kingdom. There must be an agency wherever intelligence exists, and without agency no intelligent beings could exist; and because Satan sought to destroy this, and to frustrate the great and eternal plan of Jehovah, the Lord was displeased with him. He did not repent of his rebellion, nor of the wicked proposition; but he sought to turn away the family of heaven—the family of spirits that were in the presence of God—he sought to turn them away and convert them to his plan. But he did not succeed. He did succeed in leading away about one-third part of that great family of spirits, because of their agency. They hearkened to his proposition; they thought it would be a very great and important thing to destroy the agency of man in the future creation that was about to be made, and to redeem them all in their sins, and consequently they joined with this rebellious character; hence came the fallen angels. What became of them? They were thrust down from the presence of God and the Lamb after this creation was made, and they were permitted to dwell in this creation. Finally, one of those spirits who kept their first estate was placed in a body upon this creation, and likewise a woman; and Satan came before the woman in the Garden of Eden, and tempted her. What was his object in tempting this woman? He did not succeed in overcoming her in the first estate—I mean he did not succeed in turning her away from God's commands; but inasmuch as they were now placed under different circumstances—placed in bodies of flesh and bones—placed in the Garden of Eden, he thought that he would assault them with a new temptation, to see if he could possibly overcome them. He succeeded in overcoming Eve, the woman that was given to this first man, and prevailed upon her to transgress the law of heaven, to partake of the forbidden fruit, and she succeeded in leading her husband to transgress the same law. Now, here arises a question. Did Adam partake of this forbidden fruit, being deceived as Eve was deceived? or did he partake of it knowingly and understandingly? I will give you my views upon this subject. Adam very well knew that his wife Eve, after she had partaken of the forbidden fruit, having transgressed the law of God, must die. He knew this; he knew that she would have to be cast out of the garden of Eden, from the presence of her husband; she could no longer be permitted to dwell with him. Hence, inasmuch as there was a great separation threatened between husband and wife—the wife having transgressed—he concluded that he would not be separated from the woman, and hence he was not deceived, but the woman was deceived; he partook of the forbidden fruit to prevent a separation between the two, and fell, even as the woman fell, and both were cast out together. If one only had transgressed and been cast out, the great command that had been given prior to that time—to multipy and replenish the earth—could not have been fulfilled, because of the separation. In order, therefore, that the command first given might be fulfilled, Adam, though not deceived, partook of the forbidden fruit, was cast out with Eve, and hence began, as far as possible, to fulfil the command, and to multiply his species upon this earth. There is one very important item, right here, to be understood, and should be thoroughly understood by every person desirous of knowing the truth, and that is, that when Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden, before this transgression took place, they were not subject to death; they were not subject to any kind of pain, or disease, or sickness, or any of the afflictions of mortality. Now, perhaps those who are not in the habit of reflecting upon this matter, may suppose that when Adam was placed on the earth, and Eve, his wife, they were mortal, like unto us; but that was not so. God did not make a mortal being. It would be contrary to this great goodness to make a man mortal, subject to pain, subject to sickness, subject to death. When he made this creation, and when he made these two intelligent beings and placed them upon this creation, he made them after his own likeness and his own image. He did not make them mortal, but he made them immortal, like unto himself. If he had made them mortal, and subject to pain, there would have been some cause, among intelligent beings, to say that the Lord subjected man, without a cause, to afflictions, sorrows, death and mortality. But he could not do this; it was contrary to the nature of his attributes, contrary to the nature of that infinite goodness which dwells in the bosom of the Father and the Son, to make a being subject to any kind of pain. At the time of the creation, all things that proceeded forth from his hands were considered very good. How came, then, Adam to be mortal? How came Adam to be filled with pain and affliction and with great sorrow? It was in consequence of transgression. Hence, the Apostle Paul, in speaking upon this subject, said, that by transgression sin entered into the world, and death by sin. Death, then, instead of being something that the Lord created, instead of being something that he sent into the world, and by sin; the Lord suffered it to come upon Adam in consequence of transgression. Two immortal beings, then, were placed in the garden of Eden, male and female. Was there any commandment given to those two immortal beings before the fall? There was one commandment, namely: "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth." What! Did the Lord command two immortal beings to multiply their species? He did. In meditating upon this great command given to these two immortal beings, it opens to us a field of reflection, of knowledge, concerning the great designs of the Almighty. It imparts to us a knowledge that the Lord our God intended that immortal beings should multiply their species. Can you find any place in the book of Genesis where our first parents were commanded to multiply after the fall? I do not remember any such scripture. I have read the scriptures very diligently; I do not remember any such command. Yet they did so, and the consequences were that children of mortality were born—mortal beings came upon the earth. Why? Because after the fall, Adam and Eve became mortal, and their species, of course, were after the order of the world, mortal in their nature. As the parents were subject to death, subject to pain, and sorrow, and distress, and all kinds of evil, so were all their posterity. It was contrary to the law of God for mortal beings to bring forth children of immortality; it was contrary to the order of heaven for mortal beings to multiply their species in the form of immortal beings. But may we not suppose that it was really necessary, notwithstanding there was no command given, that the children of mortality should multiply their species? Notwithstanding the Lord said nothing to Adam and Eve upon this subject after the fall, so far as it written, yet we may suppose it was according t his purpose and design that they should multiply children of mortality, even though he gave them no command after their fall to this effect. They have continued to do so, and their children after them, in all of their generations, until the present time, and will continue to do so in future generations, until the earth has filled the measure of its creation, according to the number of souls that existed before the world was organized, in the family of the two-thirds who kept their first estate. But will the time come in the endless duration of the future, when our first parents will fulfill that command which was given to them while they were yet children of immortality? In other words will the time ever come when Adam and Eve will become immortal and carry out the command that was given to them in the days of their first immortality? I answer, yes; without this, the command of God never could be, in all respects, fulfilled. Though there should be hundreds of thousands of millions, or more, of the descendants of those mortal beings come here upon the earth, the command is not fully complied with; though he may have begotten sons and daughters, Cain, Abel, Seth and many others for some nine hundred years and upwards, yet all the sons and daughters he begat while he was mortal here upon the earth did not, in all respects, fulfill the command given to him while an immortal being. That has to be fulfilled after Adam and Eve are resurrected from the grave. Have they yet been resurrected? I think so. There were a great many that were resurrected at the time of the resurrection of Christ. Christ was the first fruits of the resurrection, and then there were a great many Saints who came forth out of their graves and were resurrected, and permitted to enter into the celestial glory and dwell at his right hand. Among the number, I have no doubt but what our first parents Adam and Eve, were permitted to come forth and enter into celestial glory; and I have no doubt but what they have been fulfilling the commandment given to them before they fell. Nearly two thousand years have passed since the first resurrection of the Saints. I cannot believe that Adam and Eve, during these nineteen centuries, have been in idleness. I cannot believe that they alone constitute their whole family; but I believe that during this time they have been fulfilling literally the commandment that was given to them in the morn of creation and as immortal beings have brought forth immortal sons and daughters since their resurrection. Thus the commandment of the Most High was not made void, but is in process of fulfillment.

[SteubieU]

Holy Schnikeys!

I thought I understood quite a bit of Mormon thought. And then I came to this thread...

[erichard]

Also, for what it's worth, I found the Wikipedia article on Adam-God very historically accurate, fair, and useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_theory

Have you ever read what Elden Watson said about President Kimball's statement against A/G?

This is from this webpage.

There has been an official statement made on this subject by President Spencer W. Kimball, made in the Priesthood session of October conference 1976.

We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our Chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine. (See Ensign, November 1976 p. 77)

Several important things can be gleaned from this brief statement by President Kimball:

The Adam-God theory is not orthodox truth.

The Adam-God theory is a doctrine which is not in accordance with scripture.

The Adam-God theory is alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations.

The Adam-God theory is false doctrine.

At the time this statement was made in the 1976 Priesthood conference, I was serving on a priesthood committee under the direction of Elder Mark E. Petersen. We were at that time working with a number of people who believed the Adam-God theory, and our committee wanted to know more precisely what President Kimball meant by his statement, so through Elder Petersen we made an appointment with him and asked him.

In a private interview President Kimball made the following clarifications: He said that he did not say that President Brigham Young did not make the statements which are attributed to him, nor did he claim that they were falsely reported. Neither did he say that Brigham Young taught false doctrine. What he did say and what he meant is that the Adam-God theory is false, and the Adam-God theory is that interpretation which is placed on Brigham Young's words by present day apostates and fundamentalists - their understanding of what Brigham Young meant is false.

Considering both President Kimball's original statement and his subsequent clarification, what we need is an understanding of what Brigham Young meant by his statements which is in accordance with scripture. This is reasonable even without President Kimball's statements, because any of President Young's teachings which are not in harmony with scripture would simply be wrong anyway.

Notice that President Kimball accepted these facts:

1 He said that he did not say that President Brigham Young did not make the statements which are attributed to him,

2 nor did he claim that they were falsely reported.

3 Neither did he say that Brigham Young taught false doctrine.

4 What he did say and what he meant is that the Adam-God "theory" is false,

5 and the Adam-God theory is that interpretation which is placed on Brigham Young's words by present day apostates and fundamentalists - their understanding of what Brigham Young meant is false.

Elden also noted: any of President Young's teachings which are not in harmony with scripture would simply be wrong anyway. [but remember that new revelation can SEEM to contradict previous revelation, but actually only contradict traditions, and not the previous revelations when understood correctly.]

With this in mind, I recommend anyone read the Adam-God quotes gleaned from President Young's and other early Mormon discourses on the internet. Read them and try not to force them to say what you want them to say-- (a ubiquitous malady we have heard).

Remember that President Young was the ordained revelator for the church, and had always been faithful to the Prophet Joseph, who taught him as an apostle, etc. many things that other members of the church were not privy to.

Remember that it is eternal life to know the only true God. Forget speculation, lets read what the ordained revelator for the church taught concerning the true understanding of God.

Here is the first of several webpages with such quotes. (Note that the first quote on this list is a misquote, however.)

Richard

[consiglieri]

I would really like it if, just once, we could talk about the subject of whether Adam is the Holy Ghost without having to try to shoehorn the Adam-God Theory into the thread.

And, to my knowledge, the Adam-God Theory does not posit that Adam is the Holy Ghost!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[emeliza]

Holy Schnikeys!

I thought I understood quite a bit of Mormon thought. And then I came to this thread...

Don't worry about it too much. It is not official doctrine, but it appears that many do believe it. You get the same thing in mainstream Christianity from my experience. The rapture is one of them. So many different views on it and some of them seem way out in left field.....

My opinion is to gain an understanding of exactly what the person is trying to teach before you judge too harshly. There have been many times the Lord has had to humble me down because I thought something was crazy, and then later realized it was truth. Many of them were stories in the NT.

[MormonMason]

...Incidenatally, in the Lectures On Faith, things change a bit...from part fifth;...

Question...is contradictory revelation really progressive?

The Lectures on Faith were not revelations and were not considered so. Therefore, the question does not apply here.

[erichard]

I...And, to my knowledge, the Adam-God Theory does not posit that Adam is the Holy Ghost!

All the Best!--Consiglieri

Ths one quote I gave earlier sure seems to support it.

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost! --JD 1:51

There is another minor evidence for Adam being the Holy Ghost one can google and consider.

That is the pseudepigraphal type books such as the "Book of the Cave of Treasures", and the "Second Book of Adam and Eve", and others. These books all talk about the "body of Adam" being kept after his death in the Cave of Treasures, and later being taken on the Ark by Noah, and hidden at the "middle of the earth".

Since such pseudepigraphal works can draw upon earlier correct writings that are no longer extant, these legends are an minor evidence that the body of Adam was actually kept after his death, and later taken on the ark.

This is in harmony with the understanding that Adam's body was a resurrected body, and was to be preserved until he finishes his work in paradise as the Holy Ghost and takes up his body again.

Richard

[consiglieri]

If we are going to look at extrabiblical sources, we might try the following:

In the Qumran War Scroll, the role exercised by the Spirit of Truth in 1QS is attributed to the angelic leader Michael. As the Prince of Light, Michael is to be identified with the Spirit of Truth in 1QS; his function in relation to the sons of righteousness is "to help" them in the final battle against the forces of evil (see 1QM 13:10; 17:6-8 ). In his study on the background of the Johannine Paraclete, Otto Betz concludes that the author of the Fourth Gospel not only patterned the Paraclete after the figure of Michael, but also identified him with Michael. Betz argues that the description of Michael in the OT as the defender of Israel, the image of him in QL as the leader of the heavenly and earthly forces of light in the great battle against Belial in the final age, and particularly the presentation of Michael in the NT Book of Revelation point to him as the Paraclete of the Fourth Gospel, even though he is not named there.

* * *

According to Betz, at Easter the two paracletes, Jesus (who is considered by John himself to be the first paraclete) and Michael, exchange places. Christ acts as intercessor for the Christian community in heaven (1 John 2:1; cf. Rom 8:34) and Michael becomes the Paraclete on earth who continues the work of Jesus, testifies to God's truth, leads the disciples, and protects them against evil.

Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, 10 (The Catholic Biblical Association of America: Washington, DC, 1981), p. 111 (emphasis added).

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[MorningStar]

If we are going to look at extrabiblical sources, we might try the following:

Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, 10 (The Catholic Biblical Association of America: Washington, DC, 1981), p. 111 (emphasis added).

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I had to look up "paracletes". I see it means "holy spirit".

[MormonMason]

I had to look up "paracletes". I see it means "holy spirit".

No, actually the term means advocate or comforter. It envisions a person who stands as one summoned to come to one's aid and stand by one's side. It is from the Greek παράκλητος parakletos. Incidentally, both Jesus the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are referred to with this title in the Bible. Context determines which one.

[consiglieri]

No, actually the term means advocate or comforter. It envisions a person who stands as one summoned to come to one's aid and stand by one's side. It is from the Greek παράκλητος parakletos. Incidentally, both Jesus the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are referred to with this title in the Bible. Context determines which one.

And according to Otto Betz (no slouch, he) the Holy Ghost paraclete is Michael.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[MormonMason]

And according to Otto Betz (no slouch, he) the Holy Ghost paraclete is Michael.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think I would have to see some more context before giving my thoughts on Betz's view. Where does Betz explicitly state that Michael is the "Holy Ghost" paraclete? A reference to Betz's original comments would be nice as well. I try to read original sources rather than third-hand sources whenever possible.

[MormonMason]

I just read the references given by the article you cite above in 1QS and 1QM. I am not sure I see what is claimed for those passages. I'll keep checking, though, but so far I am not seeing it--well not from the Hebrew of the Scrolls, anyway.

[consiglieri]

I think I would have to see some more context before giving my thoughts on Betz's view. Where does Betz explicitly state that Michael is the "Holy Ghost" paraclete? A reference to Betz's original comments would be nice as well. I try to read original sources rather than third-hand sources whenever possible.

I am afraid this is the best I can:

Betz, Otto, Der Paraklet; Fursprecher im haretischen Spatjudentum, im Johannes-Evangelium und in neu gefundenen gnostischen Schriften (AGSU 2; Leiden: Brill, 1963).

Does that help?

[CMZ]

...

[kamenraider]

I don't think that Adam/Michael is the Holy Ghost at the present time.

I didn't notice this quote being posted yet, and thought it was relevant:

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

--Brigham Young, JD 1:51

[erichard]

And according to Otto Betz (no slouch, he) the Holy Ghost paraclete is Michael.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I also had to google "define:paraclete".

I would be curious how much of Otto's argument really makes sense in the LDS world view. And what his distracters say. And I wonder where John is to have "identified him with Michael."

At any rate, he surely connects the Archangel Michael with the Holy Ghost.

Richard

[kamenraider]

I will make a remark here that will perhaps reflect a little light on

the minds of some. We are taught to ask the Father when we pray, in the

name of Jesus Christ. The ancients as well as the modern revelations

ascribe honor, praise, and glory to Christ. We render praise, and honor,

and thanksgiving to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost; or in

other words, Holy Spirits. This idea may give you a particle of light.

I do not, however, pretend to say how many spirits the Lord has sent

forth; but the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised to his disciples, the

ancients enjoyed, and so does every man who understands the way of the

Lord and has had committed to him the Keys of the Everlasting Priesthood;

they are exhorted to seek and enjoy a Holy Spirit.

--Brigham Young, February 12 1854, LDS Church Historical Dept., Ms d 1234, Box 48 Fd. 11.

[Drewm777]

Go here to read the above quote in context to see what kinds of spirits he was talking about: http://books.google.com/books?id=LkRZGQ8oO...zOeRo#PPA238,M1

[MormonMason]

I am afraid this is the best I can:

Betz, Otto, Der Paraklet; Fursprecher im haretischen Spatjudentum, im Johannes-Evangelium und in neu gefundenen gnostischen Schriften (AGSU 2; Leiden: Brill, 1963).

Does that help?

It did help. I will have to obtain a copy of the original. I do not know how soon that will be. I did manage to find enough quotes, however, to try to reconstruct Betz's actual argument. It does not appear from what I am seeing that he really is identifying Michael with the Holy Ghost. It would appear, tentatively at least, that elements of both persons, though separate, are blended together, and that this seems to be Betz's argument rather than positing that Michael actually is the Holy Ghost.

Of course, this analysis is only tentative until I obtain the actual source. I still stand by the fact that the Hebrew scrolls do not appear to enunciate what is claimed for them by the article previously cited above.

[kamenraider]

Go here to read the above quote in context to see what kinds of spirits he was talking about: http://books.google.com/books?id=LkRZGQ8oO...zOeRo#PPA238,M1

What's your interpretation?

[Sargon]

I must admit I am surprised to learn that others out there have arrived at the same tentative conclusion that I have. This isn't a topic that comes up in church, nor is ever speculated about by missionaries. And to think, the great Consiglieri and I arrived independently at the same conclusion!! I don't know if that makes me look good or makes him look bad.

Sargon